Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, July 25, 2008
Robert Knight :: Townhall.com Columnist
A Lady Under Fire
by Robert Knight
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will Sarah Palin make a run at the GOP Nomination in 2012?


Elaine Donnelly reported for duty Wednesday. She went to a battlefield where most men who agree with her were AWOL.

Like her mentor, Phyllis Schlafly, she did not let others’ cowardice or indifference interfere with what she needed to do. Mrs. Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, told the truth at risk of ridicule or worse, keeping the faith that telling the truth matters no matter what.

Donnelly was one of two witnesses testifying before a House subcommittee in support of the military’s ban on homosexuality. The other three witnesses were pro-gay, as were most of the questions from the lawmakers.

Surrounded by hostile faces in the gallery, hostile faces of the liberal congressmen who dominated the “hearing,” and the skeptical faces of reporters from liberal media, Mrs. Donnelly listened stoically while other witnesses trashed her personally during their testimony.  Because of the rules, she was not able to respond until called late in the proceedings for her own testimony.

When she got her turn, Mrs. Donnelly carefully laid out the case for the law that Congress passed in 1993 and which has been upheld by multiple courts. She explained that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is not actually the law, but a watered-down policy dreamed up by Bill Clinton’s Pentagon staff, something the media continue to get wrong. She also explained why allowing open homosexuality in the military would have a multitude of effects, up to and including a probable increase in sexual harassment and sexual assaults, and a profoundly detrimental effect on the morale of service people who hold traditional values.

Amid the scribbling scribes was Dana Milbank, a Washington Post columnist who specializes in character assassination of conservatives and even Democrats who get in the way of his preferred political figures. (Ask Hillary.)

In the July 23 edition, he used his entire Page A-3 column, “Sorry We Asked, Sorry You Told,” to paint Mrs. Donnelly as a clownish figure who “amused” lawmakers.  He wrote, “It was tempting to think that Donnelly had been chosen by Democrats to sabotage the case against open military service for homosexuals. But Republicans had consented to the witness panel….”  He might also have mentioned that Donnelly has a sterling reputation earned over years of public service, but that would have conflicted with his purpose:  to discredit political adversaries through ridicule.

Speaking of the GOP, the most outspoken Republican on the panel was Christopher Shays (Conn.), a reliable water carrier for homosexual activism.  Shays denounced the military’s DADT policy as “unpatriotic” and even “absolutely cruel.” Milbank reports this comment while noting that Shays’ voice was “rising with Yankee indignation.”  That must make pushing open homosexuality on the military a righteous cause.

Milbank began his column by sarcastically introducing Mrs. Donnelly only as someone “who has been working for years to protect our fighting forces from the malign influence of women.”

Donnelly, who served on the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Armed Services and a presidential commission examining the role of women in the military, has worked for years promoting policies that support military families, and resisting the liberal campaign to lift the combat exemption for women. To Milbank, who apparently wants to shove our daughters into harm’s way as soon as possible, that’s “maligning” women.

Milbank goes on to describe Donnelly’s testimony and responses to questions as “an extraordinary exhibition of rage.” Anyone who has seen Mrs. Donnelly under fire knows that she does not do “rage.” What she does do is to demolish the other side’s arguments with logic and documented materials. She also went out of her way to recognize the service to their country by co-panelists on the other side. Every inch a lady, albeit a lady tough as nails, Mrs. Donnelly does not sink to the level of her opponents.

Milbank even criticized the way Donnelly dressed, saying she was “severe in a black jacket with a flag pin.”  Well, at least he got the flag pin right. The suit was Navy blue. And she wore pearls and a pink blouse. Now that’s severe.   

Then Milbank quoted a number of liberal Democrats who were aghast at Donnelly for  daring to disagree with their plan to homosexualize the military: “Just bonkers” and “dumb” (Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark.), “embarrassed” (Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, D-N.H.), “shocked” (Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif.)  It’s the constituents of these “congresspersons” who should be shocked and embarrassed. 

Milbank also threw in: “At the witness table with Donnelly, retired Navy Capt. Joan Darrah, a lesbian, rolled her eyes in disbelief.” The Hill, a newspaper that specializes in covering Capitol Hill, also reported in its far superior story on the hearing, “Lawmakers grill critic of gays in military,” that Tauscher repeatedly rolled her eyes during Donnelly’s testimony. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Robert Knight is a Senior Writer for Coral Ridge Ministries and a Senior Fellow with the American Civil Rights Union.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

I've been through
the ringer with white people, with men...simply because I'm black and female.
But I will NEVER concede to hate men and white people because of the various levels of abuse I've dealt with over a lifetime.
And sometimes superhuman patience is required of any of us who gay, black, female...a patience which is underappreciated.
Dukas, your beef isn't healthy. Expected, given your experience. But you want to take it out on the whole who didn't do it to you and make all pay for it.
That isn't right.
Straight men patronize a LOT of sex trade, even with little girls. And black men could be construed as very sexually irresponsible too.
You going to write them off as still worthy of Jim Crow discrimination?
Because Jim Crow WAS instituted and enforced based on black SEXUALITY, color was simply an easier way of achieving it.
Extending similar laws to gay people because of the perception of THEIR promiscuity or irresponsibility, WITHOUT supporting them in institutions like marriage is unfair and unjustified.
Imagine what our society would have been like without Jim Crow ever happening. Imagine the same freedom for gay people.
We were never a poorer society because of equal freedom and justice.


dukas and czarownica
You have shown that you've got the stereotypes down.

czaro: priests abused females as well as males. The issue is about repression of sexuality and proximity, not sexual orientation.

And dukas: low self esteem can manifest itself in promiscuity. Gay children's esteem is the most repressed and attacked. So is that of females.

Anorexia is a byproduct of the unrealistic standards of thinness. It may not be anything new, but it's an issue newly discussed realistically.
We have unrealistic standards of sexuality concerning gay folks. If there are negative byproducts of that, it's not suprising.

When realistic and positive approaches to gay children are fostered, a healthy esteem emerges.
Your generation was NEVER invested in learning the full conclusion of what acceptance of the reality of homosexuality would be like. And the results are in where and it's positive. Acceptance is new, so not everything is known, but ENOUGH is to conclude that the hysteria over homosexuality is unfounded.
YOUR experience, while I will not contradict it...reveals the very reason why gay and straight children have to be educated on what orientation means.

Repression, threat, and violence against gay persons are anathema and would be to anyone, to be healthy sexually,whatever their orientation.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.